• explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    WWIII nut here.

    Get yourself a Red Cross emergency kit, a lot of water jugs, and ramen. You’re underestimating your chances of survival and how much you’ll want to.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      You’re underestimating your chances of survival and how much you’ll want to.

      yes, you too can live out the remainder of your miserable days scrambling for rat meat in the irradiated future.

      of course, the desire to live, to survive, overcomes a lot, but ‘want to live’ I think is stretching it a bit.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        I’ve worked briefly with civil defense stuff and got to visit and learn a whole bunch about bunkers. That cemented my “take out the long chair, open my best bottle, put on some shades, and enjoy the brief light show” approach to a hypothetical nuclear alert.

      • Sergio@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 days ago

        I suspect what they’re getting at is: there are a lot of scenarios other than “all out exchange between major powers”, and when the fallout starts floating, you can either just hang out at home (and die of cancer in a year or two), or shelter in a basement for a week (and emerge to a troubled but liveable world.)

          • Sergio@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 days ago

            I’m familiar with the extinction event scenarios, and agree that in some cases one may not find the world worth living in. I recommend Krepinevich’s “7 Deadly Scenarios”, a couple of those involve nuclear attacks. The sitations are comparable to the recent Covid pandemic: millions of people die, the world is subsequently scarred, but life goes on for most people. A bit of planning can make things less horrible and a lot of it overlaps with natural disaster.

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              21 days ago

              I think you may misunderstand. <edit or I’m misreading your replies>

              Jacob’s book covers an all in exchange. everyone goes max. very little in the northern hemisphere would survive. a bit of planning, all the planning in the world - neither will save you when each side is maximizing the amount of fallout with ground strikes with megaton weapons.

              the ‘lucky’ folk in the southern hemisphere will just have to wait until the after effects catch up to them.

              Jacob’s scenario is megadeaths to gigadeaths - literally a billion dead directly (flash/blast/etc) and multiple billions dead shortly after. Krepinevich’s scenario is a few terrorists with tactical weapons.

              these are wildly different things.

              <edit I don’t think you’re meaning to downplay the seriousness of any kind of major nuclear exchange, but just underestimating how seriously civilization ending it is>

              • Sergio@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                20 days ago

                Yeah, I suspect we basically agree on things. I grew up with Threads and The Day After, and later I read up on nuclear winter and EMPs so I realize that human extinction is a very real possibility.

                But apart from that, the question is: how to prepare for the “less than extinction” scenarios, the sort of thing that Krepinevich and ready.gov discuss.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    WWI was objectively the most world changing and sets the stage for the entire modern era, if you squint WWII was just the Extended Edition of WWI all that being said WWIII was still my favorite.

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 days ago

      « Ce n’est pas une paix, c’est un armistice de vingt ans » — Ferdinand Foch about the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

      Often translated as “This isn’t a peace treaty, it’s an armistice for twenty years.” but some might prefer “This is no peace, it’s a twenty-year ceasefire.”

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    Hey, the Falklands is the one I’m obsessed with and it’s actually really interesting. Only “modern” war between near peers before ukraine.

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    Ah… remember when England decided they owned an island that was located inside the territorial waters of another country?

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 days ago

    I’m the War on Christmas guy, and I’m getting my ass handed to me every single year.

  • stevedice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    I got the second Punic war, but I think that’s just a freebie. I also spent a lot learning about the Falkland’s war just to annoy Argentinians online.